trash@oliveb.UUCP (Tom Repa) (10/01/86)
n.b. > = Kiki Herbst >>= Tom Albrecht >>>The unique contribution of the Christian gospel is that it makes us a >>>people who are more interested in your rights than in my rights. We should >>>all be as the Samaritan who was willing to risk life and property for the >>>sake of another. >>> >>>Tom Albrecht >>>"Reformata, semper reformanda" >When one becomes a Christian many changes occur in his or her life. >The biggest change is that God becomes the center of the person's life >rather than self being the center. ... > > ... Now imagine the ideal situation where everybody reacted to life >in this way, wanted the best for others. If everybody lived their lives >in that way, I think we'd have a pretty good idea of what heaven is like. >Kiki Pardon me if I like my afterlife in a different flavor. "Wanting the _best_ for others"??? Who decides what is best? Me? You? Your God? My Gods? Your *interpratations* of what your God wants? My *interpratation* of what my Gods want? Who decides? Does "wanting the best for others" mean forcing your opinions of what is best for them on them? If it does how do you know if what you're forcing on them is really the best? i.e.: She would have gone to Med school, met the perfect man, and together they discovered how to cure cancer, AIDS, and a host of degenerative neurological disorders collectively known as "Reagan's Syndrome." Instead she had to stay out school one semester to give birth to a child and give it up for adoption, didn't take the class with the brilliant researcher who directed her interest to research, and the perfect man with whom she would have had such brilliant rapport. So she just became a good M.D. The answer is, of course, you don't. No one can. Except of course your God and a host of my Gods. But my Gods aren't telling and I don't trust your God. Which is why I think you should be concerned with your life and leave mine alone. Each of us are personally responsible for doing the best we can in this life and no one else can live our life for us. So each of us must determine what is best for ourselves. If you would like to inform me, go ahead, but please don't try to legislate it. Your idea of heaven sounds to me a lot like the one Robert Heinlein wrote of in "JOB: A comedy of Justice". If you haven't read it, try it. Tom Repa (trash@oliven)
kiki@isieng.UUCP (10/03/86)
In article <51@oliveb.UUCP> trash@oliveb.UUCP (Tom Repa) writes: > >n.b. > = Kiki Herbst > >>= Tom Albrecht > >>>>The unique contribution of the Christian gospel is that it makes us a >>>>people who are more interested in your rights than in my rights. We should >>>>all be as the Samaritan who was willing to risk life and property for the >>>>sake of another. >>>>Tom Albrecht > >>When one becomes a Christian many changes occur in his or her life. >>The biggest change is that God becomes the center of the person's life >>rather than self being the center. ... >>Kiki > Pardon me if I like my afterlife in a different flavor. > >"Wanting the _best_ for others"??? Who decides what is best? Me? You? >Your God? My Gods? Your *interpratations* of what your God wants? >My *interpratation* of what my Gods want? Who decides? >Does "wanting the best for others" mean forcing your opinions of what >is best for them on them? If it does how do you know if what you're >forcing on them is really the best? I missed the first part of this discussion, so I was just commenting on what Tom had written. As for forcing opinions, though, you are right, I don't know what's right for everyone, so I wouldn't try to force my opinions on anybody. But I am concerned with the way I live *my* life. I know that God has a better mind then I do, so I rely on him for insight. If someone also believes in God and relies on that same insight, I feel very open to accepting advice from that person. The thing about having God decide is that God is Truth. That's what he said through his son Jesus. (You can accept or reject that, that's your business.) I believe he is truth, so basing decisions on him won't cause the decision to vary depending on the people involved, depending on the circumstatnce, depending on interpretations and everything else you said. God doesn't change. > > The answer is, of course, you don't. No one can. Except of >course your God and a host of my Gods. But my Gods aren't telling >and I don't trust your God. Which is why I think you should be >concerned with your life and leave mine alone. Each of us are >personally responsible for doing the best we can in this life and >no one else can live our life for us. So each of us must determine >what is best for ourselves. If you would like to inform me, go >ahead, but please don't try to legislate it. Just information :-). I would be the last person to legislate because I hate being legislated to! I agree with what you said. Let me ask you, how do you determine "what is best for ourselves", how do you determine truth or what is right? > Your idea of heaven sounds to me a lot like the one >Robert Heinlein wrote of in "JOB: A comedy of Justice". >If you haven't read it, try it. What do you think my concept of heaven is? I know what the Bible says about heaven and it sounds like a great place to me! > Tom Repa (trash@oliven) > Kiki
mberkley@watdcsu.UUCP (J.M.Berkley - Computing Services) (10/04/86)
{}
In article <51@oliveb.UUCP> trash@oliveb.UUCP (Tom Repa) writes:
>Does "wanting the best for others" mean forcing your opinions of what
>is best for them on them?
I believe that you ARE free to choose what is best for you, however
with every choice there are consequences. If you decide that it is
in your best interests to rob a bank, then you are free to do so.
However, there are consequences to that action. Those consequences
are enforced by society to protect the innocent.
Having sex makes you responsible for the consequences. Having
an abortion is only an attempt to lessen the natural consequences
of that act. Unfortunately, this involves the life of the one person
who is not guilty of anything: the baby. "wanting the best for
others" means wanting the best for the child, not cutting him or
her off from life before birth. Thus society should try to protect
this innocent little one.
So what about the mother and her rights? In my opinion, she chose
to forgo those rights when she chose to have sex. She should abide by
the consequences of her decision. If she decides to abort her baby,
then she chooses another set of consequences, far worse than carrying
the baby to term. I'm not talking about "Eternal" consequences, but
consequences right now: guilt and remorse, sterility, etc.,etc.
Do I sound high and mighty? Yes. What right do I have to dictate
what is right and wrong? None. But the truth still does not change.
I am not going to force anything upon an unwed mother, but abortion
is not the "best" thing to do for the baby or for the mother.
Mike Berkley
(PS - Please note, I'm talking about those cases where two people have
decided freely to have sex and have had "an accident;" I'm not
making a general statement about any other situation.)marty1@houem.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) (10/05/86)
In <2617@watdcsu.UUCP>, mberkley@watdcsu.UUCP (J.M.Berkley - Computing Services) wrote: >Having sex makes you responsible for the consequences. Having >an abortion is only an attempt to lessen the natural consequences >of that act. Unfortunately, this involves the life of the one person >who is not guilty of anything: the baby... > >So what about the mother and her rights? In my opinion, she chose >to forgo those rights when she chose to have sex. She should abide by >the consequences of her decision. If she decides to abort her baby, >then she chooses another set of consequences, far worse than carrying >the baby to term. I'm not talking about "Eternal" consequences, but >consequences right now: guilt and remorse, sterility, etc.,etc. > >Do I sound high and mighty? Yes. What right do I have to dictate >what is right and wrong? None. But the truth still does not change. >I am not going to force anything upon an unwed mother, but abortion >is not the "best" thing to do for the baby or for the mother. > >Mike Berkley Thanks. As far as I know, that's essentially the pro-choice position, with two exceptions. First, "Eternal" consequences are relevant for those who believe in them. Second, the fetus is not legally a "person," for reasons that have been gone over before in this newsgroup, so the state need not concern itself with protecting it. Therefore, the list of consequences of abortion includes a lot of "etc.," but don't add legal consequences to the list. M. B. Brilliant Marty AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201)-949-1858 Holmdel, NJ 07733 ihnp4!houem!marty1
mberkley@watdcsu.UUCP (J.M.Berkley - Computing Services) (10/06/86)
In article <649@houem.UUCP> marty1@houem.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) writes: >Second, the fetus is not legally a >"person," for reasons that have been gone over before in this >newsgroup, so the state need not concern itself with protecting it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Maybe this is true in a legal sense, but not morally. I'm talking about morality in society, not legality. Morally, you can't do anything but consider the fetus a "person." The view of pro-choice is that an unborn baby is not a person, the view of pro-life is that the unborn baby is a person. (This states the obvious, but you seem to need to hear it.) Hopefully forums like this will lead to the unborn baby being accorded the rights of a person in the law's eyes as well. Mike Berkley
trash@oliveb.UUCP (Tom Repa) (10/06/86)
> Xref: hplabs talk.religion.misc:374 talk.abortion:62 >>n.b. > = Kiki Herbst >> >>= Tom Repa >>Does "wanting the best for others" mean forcing your opinions of what >>is best for them on them? If it does how do you know if what you're >>forcing on them is really the best? > > .... The thing about having > God decide is that God is Truth. That's what he said through his son > Jesus. (You can accept or reject that, that's your business.) I believe > he is truth, so basing decisions on him won't cause the decision to vary > depending on the people involved, depending on the circumstatnce, depending > on interpretations and everything else you said. God doesn't change. You say I can accept or reject the above statements. But the whole point of talk.abotion is that some people are basing their world view on the bible, and expecting other people to accept it. By Law. I realize sometimes people try saying "it's killing a baby" and divorce their arguments from religion, but the fact remains that some people do not agree with that world view and, to use the wharf rats UNIX notation, but it's a !baby. [n.b. I realize other people disagree with abortion on other grounds, but this is a reply to Kiki. Hell, I don't LIKE the thought of an abortion, or its use. But I think that if it is used to allow people to move to a point in their life when they _want_ a child and can afford to raise the child(ren) in a loving and caring environment, then it is for the greater good of all involved.] [[ Oh Boy! Now we can get into a Spockian discussion of the need of the many vs. the need of the one. What Fun!]] > Just information :-). I would be the last person to legislate because I > hate being legislated to! I agree with what you said. Let me ask you, > how do you determine "what is best for ourselves", how do you determine > truth or what is right? At least we agree on something! But does the above hold true with regard to abortion? If not, why not? >> Your idea of heaven sounds to me a lot like the one >>Robert Heinlein wrote of in "JOB: A comedy of Justice". >>If you haven't read it, try it. > > What do you think my concept of heaven is? I know what the Bible says about > heaven and it sounds like a great place to me! > Whoops! Sorry, you're right. I don't _know_ what your idea of heaven is, although I think I have a good guess because of your frequent references to the bible. My interpatation of what the bible says makes it sound, to me, like an extremely boring place. So I guess I would rather go somewhere else. Valhalla, perhaps. Or maybe Nirvana. Or maybe just get reincarnated as a goat. :-) Tom Repa (trash@oliven) >> Tom Repa (trash@oliven) >> > > Kiki -- Have you ever noticed how much they look like orchids? Beautiful!! Path: {allegra,glacier,hplabs,ihnp4}!oliveb!oliven!trash
c160-aw@zooey.Berkeley.EDU (Christian Wiedmann) (10/07/86)
In article <2621@watdcsu.UUCP> mberkley@watdcsu.UUCP (J.M.Berkley - Computing Services) writes: >Morally, you >can't do anything but consider the fetus a "person." You're making the mistaken assumption that YOUR morals are EVERYBODY's morals. Personally, I agree with you, but on the other hand I don't think it's fair to press your beliefs on a society. No doubt you've detected that I'm pro- choice by now. Morals are essentially arbitrary rules shared to a limited degree by members of a society. They are similar, but not identical. Remember, there are no definitive or absolute morals. -Christian Wiedmann
alan@cae780.UUCP (10/08/86)
In article <2621@watdcsu.UUCP> mberkley@watdcsu.UUCP (J.M.Berkley - Computing Services) writes: >Maybe this is true in a legal sense, but not morally. I'm ^^^^^^^ >talking about morality in society, not legality. Morally, you ^^^^^^^ >can't do anything but consider the fetus a "person." THE FOLLOWING IS NOT AN OPINION ON ABORTION! A note to (hopefully) prevent future flames on this and other subjects. What is moral is what a person or group accepts as being moral. If it is the custom of a society to eat their first-born (to use an extreme case), then this is morally okay to them, and we cannot say they are wrong. We abhor the practice, and to everyone in our society (I hope), it is morally wrong. But if we were in their society, we would be morally violating the custom if we did not do the same. In this pluralistic society (that is what we are, isn't it?), issues such as abortion and prayer in schools do NOT have one view agreed upon by EVERYONE. If that were the case, then the above statements would be correct. Instead, they should read something like: "Morally, I cannot do anything but consider a fetus a 'person'." ^^^ It is fine for the poster to feel this way. No arguments there. But he does not have agreement from the whole society. One more quick example: Moslems Friday It is morally wrong to work on the Sabbath for Jews on Saturday. Christians Sunday Each of these religious groups in America celebrate their Sabbath in their own way, without imposing it on others. -- Alan Steinberg textronix!cae780!alan Helllp, Mr. Wizarrrrd! I don't want to be a programmer anymore!
carole@rosevax.UUCP (Carole Ashmore) (10/08/86)
In article <2617@watdcsu.UUCP>, mberkley@watdcsu.UUCP (J.M.Berkley - Computing Services) writes: . . . If she decides to abort her baby, > then she chooses another set of consequences, far worse than carrying > the baby to term. I'm not talking about "Eternal" consequences, but > consequences right now: guilt and remorse, sterility, etc.,etc. > Lord only knows what your qualifications are for telling the world what consequences women have from abortions, particularly since you seem to think that all women are alike and have the same reactions. My qualifications include personal experience with both an intentionally aborted pregnancy and a planned child carried to term. Also, I spent two years as a volunteer for Planned Parenthood. During that time I talked to more than one hundred women who were considering abortions, most of whom later had the abortions and came back to tell us about the experience. On the basis of these experiences and on the basis of my extensive reading in the field I can say that: 1. Sterility, and indeed, any bad physical consequence, is more likely to result from carrying a pregnancy to term than from a legal first trimester abortion. (The situation gets statistically more complicated for second trimester abortions because many of them are done *because* of physical complications of the pregnancy --because the woman's life or health is in danger.) The horror stories we have all heard of the awful physical consequences of abortion (infection, sterility, haemorraging, etc.) are leftovers from the bad old days when abortions were illegal and usually done under poor conditions by badly trained practitioners. Today, while it is slightly more dangerous to have an abortion than it is to never become pregnant, it is no more dangerous than carrying the pregnancy to term. 2. Some women do suffer guilt, remorse, and other mental problems following an abortion; most women do not. The women who suffered guilt were nearly always women who felt that abortion was wrong, but felt forced into it by difficult social or economic circumstances. Such women could be greatly helped by programs designed to help pregnant women choose alternatives to abortion. On the other hand, the majority of women who did not feel abortion to be wrong reported feelings of liberation, strength, independence, and being in control of their lives. These women would not be dissuaded from having abortions no matter how easy or attractive the alternative. Carole Ashmore
rap@oliveb.UUCP (Robert A. Pease) (10/08/86)
In article <2621@watdcsu.UUCP> mberkley@watdcsu.UUCP (J.M.Berkley - Computing Services) writes: >In article <649@houem.UUCP> marty1@houem.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) writes: >>Second, the fetus is not legally a >>"person," for reasons that have been gone over before in this >>newsgroup, so the state need not concern itself with protecting it. >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Maybe this is true in a legal sense, but not morally. I'm >talking about morality in society, not legality. Morally, you >can't do anything but consider the fetus a "person." This is a position that I cannot agree with. No one KNOWS. All we can do is report observations, and because of this I will not require that a fetus be thought of as an individual person. >The view of pro-choice is that an unborn baby is not a person, >the view of pro-life is that the unborn baby is a person. >(This states the obvious, but you seem to need to hear it.) > >Mike Berkley I may be mis-stateing the position, but as I see it the pro- choice position is a question of when does one person's rights end where those rights conflict and interfere with another person's rights. An example I have used before. If I injured myself in such a way that I would die if you did not give me some organ for transplant and you were the only person in the world who could give me this organ, do you have a right to refuse me that organ if it doesn't adversly affect your helth? My answer to the question is, yes. -- Robert A. Pease {hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!oliven!rap
sunny@hoptoad.uucp (Sunny Kirsten) (10/09/86)
> "Morally, I cannot do anything but consider a fetus a 'person'." > ^^^ > It is fine for the poster to feel this way. No arguments there. But he does > not have agreement from the whole society. A fetus is a body which is going to die anyway. The spirit lives eternally. There are more spirits waiting to incarnate than there are bodies to hold them. Normally, the spirit takes the body between birth and 10 days after. Therefore, abortion is not murder, where I'm defining murder to be depriving a spirit of a body it already possesses prior to it's being willing to depart its body. Likewise, pulling the plug on a medically sustained body whose spirit has already departed is not murder. What's the difference, as far as the absent spirit is concerned, between its potential or obsolete body being allowed to or forced to expire, by failing to support it, whether that support came from a human womb or a set of medical machinery? Sunny -- Sunny Kirsten POB 557 Monte Rio, CA 95462-0557 (707)865-2885 USENET: {sun,ptsfa,well,lll-crg,ihnp4,ucsfcgl,nsc,frog}!hoptoad!sunny
mberkley@watdcsu.UUCP (J.M.Berkley - Computing Services) (10/09/86)
In article (Alan M. Steinberg) writes: >In article (J.M.Berkley - Computing Services) writes: >>Maybe this is true in a legal sense, but not morally. I'm > ^^^^^^^ >>talking about morality in society, not legality. Morally, you > ^^^^^^^ >>can't do anything but consider the fetus a "person." > >What is moral is what a person or group accepts as being moral. >If it is the custom of a society to eat their first-born (to use >an extreme case), then this is morally okay to them, and we cannot >say they are wrong. We abhor the practice, and to everyone in our >society (I hope), it is morally wrong. But if we were >in their society, we would be morally violating the custom if we did not do the >same. I don't recall any societies where murder is condoned for the sake of convenience. Sure there are/were societies where babies were murdered for religious ceremonies or entire villages were slaughtered for reasons of war but I do not know of any society where it was acceptable for a child to be killed for reasons of convenience. That's what abortion is. A matter of convenience. Mike
gadfly@ihlpa.UUCP (Gadfly) (10/09/86)
--
> Morally, you can't do anything but consider the fetus a "person."
False. Clearly, you must consider it "human", but "person"--what exactly
is a person? All reasonable definitions ultimately resort to common
sense (a person is something that looks or acts like one), and this
excludes a 3-day old clump of cells. And indeed, many quite upstanding
ethical codes, at present and through history, do not consider a fetus
to be a person. It may become a person, just as Prince Andrew may become
king of England. It thus has a *claim* to rights, as Andrew has a *claim*
to the throne. Claims, of course, are relative, as Charles and Di might
tell you.
*** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** *****
****** ****** 09 Oct 86 [18 Vendemiaire An CXCV]
ken perlow ***** *****
(312)979-8042 ** ** ** **
ihnp4!ihlpa!gadfly *** *** <== NOTE NEW ADDRESS!devonst@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) (10/10/86)
carole@rosevax.UUCP (Carole Ashmore) writes: > >On the basis of these experiences and on the basis of my extensive >reading in the field I can say that: > > 1. Sterility, and indeed, any bad physical consequence, is more > likely to result from carrying a pregnancy to term than from > a legal first trimester abortion. ... > > 2. Some women do suffer guilt, remorse, and other mental > problems following an abortion; most women do not. ... [followed by more off-the-cuff assertions] > > Carole Ashmore Statistics, please, could we have some statistics? It's easy for abortionists (and anti-abortionists) to make such unsubstantiated claims. Where are the facts to back up the assertions? Do you, in your counseling, use the approach that the fetus is possibly a living human and worthy of protection? What comfort is it to these women to be told the the child within her is simply a lump of flesh only to find out later that it ain't necessarily so? That's where the mental problems come from. I've talked with members of WEBA who invariably recall their experience as one clouded by misinformation and half-truths all designed to get the woman to have an abortion. Remember, abortion is big business. Tom Albrecht
ptl@fluke.UUCP (10/10/86)
Hi, In article <1976@curly.ucla-cs.ARPA> oleg%OACVAX.BITNET writes: >... Talk.abortion is a place to discuss abortion issues. Faith in God requires facing this serious moral question, anywhere. If what you said was meant to be true, why then did the remainder of your article deal strictly with abortion and your pro-choice stance. >... The PRO-CHOICE view is that a woman's >rights to privacy and her body over-rule any possible rights to life of >a miniscule blob of cells that feeds of her body and does weird things >to her chemistry. With todays scientific abilities, the laws cannot keep up. There is a cutoff of x number of weeks, beyond which a baby is considered not abortable. Babies have lived that were born before the cutoff date. Should the laws be continually updated, for every baby born before a new cutoff date; or will people realize the baby is a little people. >... The view of "pro-life" is that a life of a fetus >is more important than needs and wants of a woman who is sentenced to >nurture it within her body and then for 18-20 years as a dependent. When a parent becomes too old to care for him/her self - you then believe they too are an unwanted burden which makes it acceptable for them to be killed. Simply because they would depend on you? >... The view of "pro-life" is that the State, governed by the inane logic >of applying shoddy interpretations of nebulous allusions of a particular >religious book of questionable authenticity, has a right to force women >to endanger their lives against their will. >... Oleg Kiselev, HASA "A" division founder The current law does not reflect Christian belief in the sanctity of life. Every law is made with someone's idea of moral right and wrong. There is no avoiding it. I personally don't think there is a hard and fast never on abortion. When the mother's life is clearly endangered is probably one I see as possible - I pray I never face such a decision, and neither do you. Recently in Washington State, some people were pushing for the right to have abortion on demand when they didn't like the sex of the baby they were about to have. It was thrown out. But where will it end, and what effect will it have on the elderly. Replace the words fetus and baby with infirmed and elderly in pro-choice articles - maybe this is where it is leading. Then go another step and put in the words long term sickness, quadraplegic, ... - another possible direction things can go. The women who have already had abortions suffer, too. Condemning them is equal to condemning the baby. A woman I know recently had an abortion, and she is now in much mental pain. She doesn't need my judgment or yours, she needs our love, God's unconditional love. Christians must love even pro-choice advocates. If you can't, then think of them as your enemies, and God's *command* to love our enemies takes over. God Bless, Mike Andrews
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (10/10/86)
From: mberkley@watdcsu.UUCP (J.M.Berkley - Computing Services): >In article (Alan M. Steinberg) writes: >>What is moral is what a person or group accepts as being moral. >>If it is the custom of a society to eat their first-born (to use >>an extreme case), then this is morally okay to them, and we cannot >>say they are wrong. We abhor the practice, and to everyone in our >>society (I hope), it is morally wrong. But if we were >>in their society, we would be morally violating the custom if we did not do the >>same. > >I don't recall any societies where murder is condoned for the >sake of convenience. Sure there are/were societies where babies >were murdered for religious ceremonies or entire villages were >slaughtered for reasons of war but I do not know of any society >where it was acceptable for a child to be killed for reasons of >convenience. The killing of infants for reasons of convenience has been practiced by many societies. The ancient Greeks did it, I'm pretty sure the Egyptians did it, the Chinese did it... probably more ancient societies did it than not. The typical practice was death by exposure - the infant was taken out into the wilderness and left there. This practice is probably the reason that many myths and fairy tales have the hero being found in the woods by some poor-but-honest couple who raise him as their own. Maybe this was even how Moses ended up in the rushes; I forget the story. Why'd they do it? The parents didn't want the child. Maybe they couldn't afford to raise it; maybe it had birth defects; maybe it was a girl, and a son was wanted; maybe the child would have been an embarrassment to Mom when hubby came home after a few years off to war. And since abortion was a *very* unsafe procedure back then, exposure was often the more popular method of getting rid of unwanted children. Of course, this was not necessarily seen as murder by these societies. In some the practice was sanctioned, and not considered murder. The status of "person" wasn't gained at birth, but when the child was accepted into its family/community shortly thereafter. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELECTRIC AVENUE: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,hplabs}!ames!barry
marty1@houem.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) (10/11/86)
There is no monolithic pro-choice view. In <1976@curly.ucla-cs.ARPA>, cc@locus.ucla.edu (Oleg "Kill the bastards" Kiselev) wrote: >In article <2621@watdcsu.UUCP> mberkley@watdcsu.UUCP (J.M.Berkley) writes: ... >>The view of pro-choice is that an unborn baby is not a person, > >You are VERY WRONG. PRO-CHOICE has very little to say about whether that >"unborn baby" is a "person" or even if it is alive. The view of PRO-CHOICE >is that women have inalienable rights to their bodies and ... > ... that a woman's >rights to privacy and her body over-rule any possible rights to life of >a miniscule blob of cells that feeds of her body and does weird things >to her chemistry. J.M.Berkley is not VERY WRONG. I am pro-choice and I think it's important to say that a fetus is not a person. When you call the fetus a "minuscule blob of cells" you imply that it is not entitled to be treated as a person. For further reasoning see below. >>the view of pro-life is that the unborn baby is a person. > >The view of so-called "pro-life" is that ... a life of a fetus >is more important than needs and wants of a woman who is sentenced to >nurture it within her body and then for 18-20 years as a dependent. >The view of "pro-life" is that the State ... has a right to force women >to endanger their lives against their will. The view of "pro-life" is that >to preserve disputable rights of a possible human being they can violate >the rights of an adult, fully formed and often productive human being. Oleg, if you allow a fetus to be called a person then its rights are indisputable, not "disputable." Its right to life might then override its mother's needs and wants. In spite of what Paul Dubuc may say, I do not hold a mother's right to the use of her body to be absolute. Nor do I hold a fetus to be absolutely worthless. All is relative. But after all the analysis of gradations of value, if you have to draw a line somewhere, it makes sense to draw the line at birth and say an unborn fetus is not a person. Anything else leads to a logical and legal morass in which pro-lifers delight in trapping us. I may be wrong (I hope not VERY WRONG). Maybe somebody can suggest a better logical ground for pro-choice than I have chosen. M. B. Brilliant Marty AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201)-949-1858 Holmdel, NJ 07733 ihnp4!houem!marty1
cc@locus.ucla.edu (Oleg "Kill the bastards" Kiselev) (10/12/86)
In article <686@cal-asd.fluke.UUCP> ptl@cal-asd.UUCP (Mike Andrews) writes: >In article <1976@curly.ucla-cs.ARPA> oleg%OACVAX.BITNET writes: >>... Talk.abortion is a place to discuss abortion issues. >If what you said was meant to be true, why then did the remainder of >your article deal strictly with abortion and your pro-choice stance. You are right, I should have at least set the followup field properly. Apologies. This article gets x-posted to talk.abortion and will be "Followup"ed to talk.abortion only. >Faith in God requires facing this serious moral question, anywhere. Well, THAT is a proper thing to discuss in this news group. I do not accept the existance of your God and therefore do not concern myself with having to do something because of "faith". >With todays scientific abilities, the laws cannot keep up. There is a >cutoff of x number of weeks, beyond which a baby is considered not >abortable. Babies have lived that were born before the cutoff date. >Should the laws be continually updated, for every baby born before >a new cutoff date; or will people realize the baby is a little people. You want to keep the "removed" fetuses alive? Be my guest! You can start hanging around the Family Planning Centers ("abortion clinics" in "pro-life" terminology) and offering to the women who visit it to take over their motherly functions for them. A small financial reward would surely provide you with more fetuses than your body could support. Or do you want to see statistics on the number of babies that grow up NORMAL (i.e. not severely physically and brain damaged), or even SURVIVED these very premature births. Or do you need me to tell you that it COSTS LOTS OF MONEY to provide the care for premature babies, money most people do not have??? Or do you need me to tell you that if YOU want not to have an abortion NOBODY will force you to have one??? >>... The view of "pro-life" is that a life of a fetus >>is more important than needs and wants of a woman who is sentenced to >>nurture it within her body and then for 18-20 years as a dependent. > >When a parent becomes too old to care for him/her self - you then >believe they too are an unwanted burden which makes it acceptable >for them to be killed. Simply because they would depend on you? You are either an idiot or you are VERY naive. There are plenty of examples of old people being killed by neglect and abuse in retirement houses. Their children and relatives get rid of them and forget them completely. So much for old people analogy. You do not seem to realize that most human beings have emotions, likes, loves and loyalties of other human beings associated with them, that the lives of these human beings are very closely interwoven by emotional strings with lives of other people -- a death of one person in this network of relationships resonates through the entire network, ringing every node in it, causing grief, sorrow, remorse. THAT is a true value, a true definition of a human being -- people are NOTHING without love and care of their fellow human beings. There are very few people who have these emotional ties with a fetus. A wanted future-child has very strong ones, an unwanted one has negative ones. The people who are closest and most often the only ones linked to the unborn child's life are the parents. If THEY do not want the baby -- WHAT RIGHT IS IT OF YOURS TO TELL THEM WHAT TO DO?! It is not YOUR PLACE TO MAKE DEMANDS! >>... The view of "pro-life" is that the State, governed by the inane logic >>of applying shoddy interpretations of nebulous allusions of a particular >>religious book of questionable authenticity, has a right to force women >>to endanger their lives against their will. >The current law does not reflect Christian belief in the sanctity of life. >Every law is made with someone's idea of moral right and wrong. There >is no avoiding it. Good thing too! You presume to speak for all Xtians. Yet there are plenty of Xtians who do not extend this alleged sanctity of life upon a fetus! >Then go another step and put in the >words long term sickness, quadraplegic, ... - another possible direction >things can go. Do not attempt to cloud the issue! A local court case of a quadruplegic woman, who practically lived on pain killers and just wanted to have the doctors let her die, is still too fresh in my memory. I wish you never have to face a situation in which either you will be begging someone to kill you to end your suffering, or someone close to you was writhing in pain for months or years, while you held their death and a release from pain in your hands! >The women who have already had abortions suffer, too. Condemning them >is equal to condemning the baby. A woman I know recently had an >abortion, and she is now in much mental pain. She doesn't need my >judgment or yours, she needs our love, God's unconditional love. >Christians must love even pro-choice advocates. If you can't, then think >of them as your enemies, and God's *command* to love our enemies takes over. You God's "*command*" means nothing to me. If He is displeased about my attitude -- let Him tell me so. Not that I accept your God's existance. As for "condemning" women who had abortions: ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND?! You are REALLY confused, my opponent: PRO-CHOICE means people have choices, and whatever those choices are THEY ARE CHOICES OF THOSE PEOPLE and are not a subject of judgement by strangers. Oleg Kiselev, HASA "A" division
arment@violet.berkeley.edu (Armentrout Group) (10/12/86)
In article <2625@watdcsu.UUCP> mberkley@watdcsu.UUCP (J.M.Berkley - Computing Services) writes: > >I don't recall any societies where murder is condoned for the >sake of convenience. Sure there are/were societies where babies >were murdered for religious ceremonies or entire villages were >slaughtered for reasons of war but I do not know of any society >where it was acceptable for a child to be killed for reasons of >convenience. > >That's what abortion is. A matter of convenience. > >Mike How about ancient Greece and Rome? In those societies, it was permissible for a father to expose a newborn baby outdoors if he felt that the baby was too weak or sickly to be worth supporting, i.e. if the father thought that raising the child would be too inconvenient.
ggw@ethos.UUCP (Gregory Woodbury) (10/12/86)
In article <1180@hoptoad.uucp> sunny@hoptoad.UUCP (Sunny Kirsten) writes: >><referring to:> >> "Morally, I cannot do anything but consider a fetus a 'person'." >> It is fine for the poster to feel this way. No arguments there. But he does >> not have agreement from the whole society. > >A fetus is a body which is going to die anyway. >The spirit lives eternally. >There are more spirits waiting to incarnate than there are bodies to hold them. >Normally, the spirit takes the body between birth and 10 days after. >Therefore, abortion is not murder, where I'm defining murder to be depriving >a spirit of a body it already possesses prior to it's being willing to depart >its body. > Sunny >-- Specifically, ''the spirit takes the body between birth and 10 days after'', OH REALLY! Despite my feelings on the matter (pro-choice), I am NOT willing to let this pass. To blindly assert that the spirit comes to the body after birth (besides, the spirit is -in christian terms- of god: do you possibly mean the soul?) is just too much. It involves assumptions about the deity's actions; the nature of the spirit; the relationship between the flesh and the spirit/soul; and several other topics. The issue of abortion has many facets, but to try to lay this one aside by saying that the spirit/soul comes after birth doesn't work. I am not saying that the spirit is present from conception (that is just as arrogant), but that nobody can be absolutely sure when or where it does arise. Greg Woodbury ------------------------------------------ Gregory G. Woodbury The usual disclaimers apply Red Wolfe Software and Services, Durham, NC {duke|mcnc|rti-sel}!ethos!ggw
awc@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Alex Cannon) (10/12/86)
Someone let Sunny Kirsten out for a walk, and she managed to get to a keyboard again: :-) >There are more spirits waiting to incarnate than there are bodies to hold >them. Normally, the spirit takes the body between birth and 10 days after. Sunny, you're a loon. >Therefore, abortion is not murder, where I'm defining murder to be depriving >a spirit of a body it already possesses prior to it's being willing to depart >its body. I think Sunny went through some awful trauma as a child, and she needs to substitute fantasy for reality so she can avoid thinking too hard. >Likewise, pulling the plug on a medically sustained body whose spirit >has already departed is not murder. I'm pro-choice and in favor of (self-)euthanasia, and it bothers me to see other people support my views with gibberish. Come on Sunny, you *must* have a brain; USE IT! > Sunny Alex Cannon Boston University
mberkley@watdcsu.UUCP (J.M.Berkley - Computing Services) (10/13/86)
In article <2061@curly.ucla-cs.ARPA> oleg@OACVAX.BITNET (Oleg Kiselev) writes: >In article <686@cal-asd.fluke.UUCP> ptl@cal-asd.UUCP (Mike Andrews) writes: >>Then go another step and put in the >>words long term sickness, quadraplegic, ... - another possible direction >>things can go. > >Do not attempt to cloud the issue! A local court case of a quadruplegic >woman, who practically lived on pain killers and just wanted to have the >doctors let her die, is still too fresh in my memory. I wish you never >have to face a situation in which either you will be begging someone to >kill you to end your suffering, or someone close to you was writhing in >pain for months or years, while you held their death and a release from >pain in your hands! ---------------------------------------------------------------- I think that Mike was referring to the logical extension of all arguments about the usefulness of someone to society: forced euthanasia. I have misgivings about euthanasia for someone who wants to be freed from suffering, but I can't honestly say that it is right or wrong. However, it is not right to force euthanasia on someone. That is what Mike Andrews was getting at. The conclusion, it is not right to force euthanasia on the unborn baby. Mike Berkley
george@scirtp.UUCP (George Greene Jr.) (10/14/86)
I'll grant a tip of the hat to a worthy adversary here. > > I don't recall any societies where murder is condoned for the > sake of convenience. Sure there are/were societies where babies > were murdered for religious ceremonies or entire villages were > slaughtered for reasons of war but I do not know of any society > where it was acceptable for a child to be killed for reasons of > convenience. > > That's what abortion is. A matter of convenience. You have stated the pro-life position well and clearly. Your side of the argument is blessed with the shorter defenses. My main points against this particular formulation of it are: 1) Most of the societies were patriarchal, but most of the inconvenience was borne by the mothers and their misbegotten children. You can bet that if fathers had had to share that inconvenience, "child murders" would've been a lot more common historically. 2) In some cultures, since children are your property and have to obey their fathers, it is true that fathers with more kids have more workers, and can earn more wealth by managing them productively. This is another reason why patriarchal societies would tend to cheat deserving women out of their abortions. This is the main reason why birth control is so impossible in Kenya and India today. It is also the main reason why lessening population growth has zero force as an argument in favor of abortion. 3) The mere fact that you haven't read about societies where child murder or abandonment for "convenience" was common doesn't imply that they didn't exist. As Christians should know, Moses was abandoned for precisely that reason. I'm sure the history or soc. majors could help you on that one. > >>talking about morality in society, not legality. Morally, you > >>can't do anything but consider the fetus a "person." > > > >What is moral is what a person or group accepts as being moral. > >If it is the custom of a society to eat their first-born (to use > >an extreme case), then this is morally okay to them, and we cannot > >say they are wrong. We abhor the practice, and to everyone in our > >society (I hope), it is morally wrong. But if we were > >in their society, we would be morally violating the custom if we did not do the > >same.
marty1@houem.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) (10/14/86)
In article <2630@watdcsu.UUCP> mberkley@watdcsu.UUCP (J.M.Berkley - Computing Services) wrote: >In article <2061@curly.ucla-cs.ARPA> oleg@OACVAX.BITNET (Oleg Kiselev) writes: >>In article <686@cal-asd.fluke.UUCP> ptl@cal-asd.UUCP (Mike Andrews) writes: >>>Then go another step and put in the >>>words long term sickness, quadraplegic, ... - another possible direction >>>things can go. >> >>Do not attempt to cloud the issue! ... local court case ... >> ... is still too fresh in my memory. >---------------------------------------------------------------- >I think that Mike was referring to the logical extension of all >arguments about the usefulness of someone to society: forced >euthanasia.... > >The conclusion, it is not right to force euthanasia on the unborn >baby. A person's usefulness to society is not ended by chronic illness or physical disability. A person continues to be useful by being known, loved, hated, respected, despised, pitied, etc., by other people. I have suggested that judgments of whether people should live or die are made, and should be made, on the basis of that person's usefulness to society. But usefulness should not be judged simplistically. In fact, usefulness may exist even if can not be proved. Don't condemn unless you can prove uselessness "beyond the shadow of a doubt." There are many differences between unborn children and the chronically or terminally ill, and "logical extensions" are not to be made lightly. I can easily oppose forced euthanasia without opposing abortion. M. B. Brilliant Marty AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201)-949-1858 Holmdel, NJ 07733 ihnp4!houem!marty1
cc@locus.ucla.edu (Oleg "Kill the bastards" Kiselev) (10/15/86)
In article <659@houem.UUCP> marty1@houem.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) writes: >There is no monolithic pro-choice view. Yes, Marty. And you show where our views differ. I can not dispute the logic of your position. Mine is a bit different (as I have often expressed it). That's a beauty of PRO-CHOICE: for very different reasons, we all agree on one thing -- the RIGHT TO CHOOSE. Well, may be I should NOT have spoken for ALL pro-lifers :-).... Oleg Kiselev, HASA "A" division